philmontfandomcom-20200215-history
Philwiki:Be bold in contributing
The Philwiki community encourages users to be bold in updating articles. Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the language is precise, and so on. We expect everyone to be bold. It's okay. It is what everyone expects. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Philwiki not only allows you to add, revise, and edit the article — it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. If someone writes an inferior article, a merely humorous article, an article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry that editing it might hurt their feelings. Correct it, add to it, and, if it's total nonsense, replace it. That's the nature of a Wiki. And, of course, others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Philwiki as good as it can possibly be. …but don't be reckless! New users in particular are often entranced by the openness of Philwiki and dive right in. That's a good thing. But please note: 'be bold in updating pages' does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the controversial Philmont subject here, without carefully looking at your edit. It is most often a good idea to be objective with the facts, rather than be opinionated. In many such cases the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Philwikians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily. If you would like to edit an article on a controversial subject, it's a good idea to first read the article in its entirety, read the comments on the talk page, and view the page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is. It's also worth reading around some related articles, as what you thought was a problem or omission may vanish after you have followed a few links. If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references. Then, wait for responses for at least a day: people edit Philwiki in their spare time and may not respond immediately. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page. Also be sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning.